EVIDENCE GAINED FROM TORTURE: WISHFUL THINKING, CHECKABILITY, AND EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES

The article I am about to summarize and comment on was written by James Franklin and published in the Cardozo Journal of International & Comparative Law. This is a journal published three times a year by students of the Cardozo school of law at Yeshiva University located on lower Fifth Avenue in New York City’s Greenwich Village.

Franklin’s article begins upfront by clarifying some definitions and phrasings. He expresses the importance of identifying that the discussion of whether torture is effective as an interrogation technique is separated completely from the argument about whether or not it is ethical or moral. He makes a great point in stating that it should first be determined if torture even works before shifting the focus to its legality. He also clarifies the meaning of effectiveness by saying that torture is not akin to a trial in that evidence has to be found “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Rather he believes the information must meet a standard he calls “quite probably true”.  Franklin believes that in order for torture to be an effective interrogation tool, the information obtained must be verifiable. This is his main point of discussion which seeks to dismantle the anti-torture advocates argument that people will say anything under duress to make the pain stop. He believes that in order to say torture is effective, the interrogators must receive falsifiable information from the detainee that can be checked for authenticity. This is the only way one can say without a doubt that torture is an effective strategy.

Franklin continues his article by outlining cases from history where torturers “fact-checked” the information provided by detainees before passing judgements or making decisions. He also included times throughout history such as the European witch hunts in which tens of thousands were killed based on false confessions under duress or torture. The article continues with multiple examples of torture revealing the crucial fact necessary to thwart the plot or save the day, with only one instance of torture failing to provide useful information. That instance was the interrogation of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a Libyan al-Qaeda operative captured while fleeing Afghanistan around the end of 2001. He provided false information to his captors that Iraq had given chemical and biological warfare training to Al-Qaeda. This information was heavily relied upon by the Bush administration as the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.  Franklin concludes by stating the importance of further research as the dangers posed by external threats are greater now than ever before and the ability to act quickly in the interrogation process could save countless innocent lives.

Critique:

This article definitely had a slant that was pro-torture in nature as was evidenced by some of the verbiage used by the author. Statements such as one claiming the freedoms we have now are a result of torture techniques used in the past American wars are evidence to support this conclusion. The article focused much of its body discussing the potential benefits of torture by citing multiple cases where torture or the threat of immense bodily harm caused detainees to offer up useful information. Whereas only one example was used to show how torture can also be ineffective in revealing the truth. I did like however that even though the article itself was biased in favor of torture, it specifically spelled out in the earlier portion that very little empirical research has been done on the topic. The academic community would shun any “respectable” researcher who would seek to compile real cases of torture to see if in fact it proved effective. Even in places where torture is accepted, those who’ve written on the subject with first-hand experience receive little recognition due to the subject’s taboo nature. Nobody is going to take the word of a torturer who says it is very effective because society “rightly or wrongly” sees him/her as a bad guy/girl. It seems like the issue of torture is in the same boat as the rest of the methodologies studied this semester in that more research is needed in order to prove effectiveness. This is one methodology in which I have no interest in being a part of its future. 

Citation:

Franklin, James. (2009). Evidence Gained from Torture: Wishful Thinking, Checkability, And Extreme Circumstances. Cardozo Journal of International & Comparative Law. Mar2009, Vol. 17 Issue 2, p281-290.

Summary of Findings: Elicitation (4 out of 5 Stars)

Note: This post represents the synthesis of the thoughts, procedures and experiences of others as represented in the articles read in advance (see previous posts) and the discussion among the students and instructor during the Advanced Analytic Techniques class at Mercyhurst University in October 2016 regarding Elicitation as an Analytic Technique specifically. This technique was evaluated based on its overall validity, simplicity, flexibility and its ability to effectively use structured data.

Description:

Elicitation is a modifying technique for collecting intelligence. Elicitation is used to discreetly gather information. It is a conversation with a specific purpose: collect information that is not readily available and do so without raising suspicion that specific facts are being sought. It is usually non-threatening, easy to disguise, deniable, and effective. The conversation can be in person, over the phone, or in writing. Conducted by a skilled collector, elicitation will appear to be normal social or professional conversation. A person may never realize they were the target of elicitation or that they provided meaningful information.  

Strengths:

• Can acquire important information that cannot be retrieved by conventional methods
• Is flexible and useful in different types of situations
• Can be used to supplement another type of collection technique to gather more information
• Provides the ability to create and build future relationships and networks

Weaknesses:

• Difficult to pull of without alerting the other party to your intentions
• Can potentially cause a significant operation security risk if collection is detected
• Language barriers limit the efficiency and effectivity of the method.
• Difficult to replicate

How-To:

• Identify a target with the information you wish to acquire.
• Obtain background information on the target to identify talking points
• Plan ahead how you wish to get the information from the target without raising suspicion
• Approach the target in a non-threatening environment and strike up a conversation
• Walk the target through your pre-planned conversation in an effort to extract the knowledge you require
• Once you’ve elicited the information you required, walk the target back to a more broad topic of conversation to disguise your line of questioning

Application of Technique:

Students in a class were asked to participate in a role playing exercise where there were four designated collectors and four designated targets.  Both the collectors and targets were given background information on one another but the differences in personal mission for the exercise.  The collectors were given a specific question they were try to find an answer to through indirect means.  The targets were given some piece of information that they were trying to protect.  At the end of the experiment the collectors were debriefed on the information they were able to gather from their targets.

Elicitation Exercise: The Diplomatic Party

The US embassy in Warsaw is hosting a party. The party members will be four members from the White Team. The party also has four members from the Green Team who will play the part of a respective adversarial intelligence-gathering component.

The Green Team will try to use elicitation techniques to gain information from the White Team members.

White Team: come up with a character you will play during the party. You can chose anything that you believe will be at a diplomatic party such as military officer, diplomat, government official, industry representative (rare but if relevant or invited), or any other.

Once you have a role in mind, develop a short backstory and a piece of information that your Green Team counterpart will have to get. Just make it up, it does not have to be very real to life, but should be plausible.

Green Team: The information you make for your Green Team person should be enough to give them exactly the question they need to use with the elicitation process as well as some basic information to sort of speed the process along.

White Team:

Major General Roman Popov, Russian Ground Forces

Major General with Russian diplomatic mission in Warsaw

Elicitor - US intelligence collector under diplomatic cover (top tip, do not open with that) Question:

What is the Russian Army’s current plan OR most likely plan for Ukraine operations?

Do not allow Popov to know what you are after.

Popov’s Secret:

The Kremlin is waiting to see what the new President does, but the sanctions are starting to strain the military. Barring anything severe, plans are being made that the Russian Armed Forces will quietly start to withdraw from Ukraine in mid-2017.

Vladimir Norov

Consultant of the Office of the President of Uzbekistan

Elicitor - Cover is a Chinese diplomat, but secretly is a Chinese intelligence operative.  

Question

Will Uzbekistan strengthen its security ties with Russia?

Note: Elicitor NOT ALLOWED to ask question directly or will lose exercise.

Vladimir Norov’s Secret:

Russia offered to forgive Uzbek debt if the interim President agreed to slow exports to China by half, or 15%.  Norov knows the interim President does not like the Chinese and will almost certainly accept the offer and strengthen ties with Russia.

Mary Smith

Member of the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom (UK)

Elicitor - Cover is an American diplomat, but secretly is an intelligence operative for the Labour Party of the UK (The Labour Party is one of the UK’s two major parties, along with the Conservative Party).  

Question:

What is Theresa May’s main negotiating goal for Brexit?

Mary Smith’s Secret:

As long as other Brexit requirements remain, Theresa May is most willing to negotiate a deal which includes the UK staying in the European single market after Brexit.

Cpt. James Patterson, US Army

Commanding Officer of the Military Police Unit assigned to provide security to the U.S. embassy in Warsaw.

Elicitor - Cover is as an American journalist, but secretly is an intelligence operative for the Russian Government

Question

(Primary) What are the security measures in place at the embassy as far as troop strength and weaponry?

(Secondary) What is the evacuation plan for the Ambassador during an emergency?

CPT James Patterson’s Secret:

(Primary) The embassy is currently being guarded by one squad (12) of active duty Army MPs equipped with crappy M16s and M9 pistols. The rest of the soldiers are off duty in their barracks located in the building next door to the embassy.

(Primary) The soldiers are tired, complacent, and are ready to redeploy home after a long year of embassy security in which nothing happened.

(Secondary) The escape plan for Ambassador Jones involves an underground tunnel which he is to be rushed through which leads to the back of a shoe store a quarter mile away from the embassy. Two MPs are stationed at the rear of the shoe store to secure the location.

For Further Information:

Spy Game Movie Training Sequence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbixeLf-98w

Collection Information:

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/elicitation-brochure.pdf

The Scharff Technique: On How to Effectively Elicit Intelligence from Human Sources

http://www.intersolglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Scharff-technique-on-how-to-effectively-elicit-intelligence-from-human-sources.pdf

Hanns Scharff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff

Military Interrogation Techniques Training - Intelligence Gathering Tactics/Methods (1943):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO9vaVqhr38

Military Interrogation Manual: FM 34-52

https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/intel_interrogation_may-1987.pdf

Elicitation Counterintelligence:

http://www.dss.mil/documents/ci/CIBooklet.pdf

Elicitation & Recruitment: Can You Recognize It:

http://www.dss.mil/documents/ci/CI-Elicitation.pdf

Human Intelligence in Law Enforcement:

http://www.spiaa.com/pdfdoc/SPI%20HUMINT%20Class-glassford.pdf

Elicitation of information and response biases of repressors, sensitizers, and neutrals in behavior prediction

Summary:

Martin Kaplan discusses the effects of interviewer biases in the processes of information elicitation in this article.  The author used participants to test the effects different personalities have on garnering information from others.  Interviewers were asked to make behavior predictions to test how accurately they were able to elicit information from a subject.

The author tested two main hypotheses:  differences in the interviewer's predictions can be explained by personality groups eliciting different information, and that if each group elicits different information, then the information would be consistent. The experiments would test if actual differences existed and were consistent.

Kaplan conducted three tests to attempt to isolate a bias variable and prevent differences in perception to affect the interviewers judgement when forecasting an individual's behavior.  The subjects were divided as 'repressors', 'sensitizers', and 'neutrals'. The subjects were divided based on their scores on the Byrne Scale of Repression-Sensitization test.  Twenty random subjects were selected from each group as 'judges' and each judge was paired with a neutral 'target'.

The author then explains the specifics of the testing and instructions given to all participants.  He explained how he analyzed each group's discussions and interviews and compares factors like speech time of judges and of targets and how participants rated their own personalities.  Kaplan made his own predictions on how he thought the judges predictions would differ.

What Kaplan found is that sensitizers tended to speak more in the interviews than their targets did. A significant difference in relevance to criteria behavior was not found between the groups.  Kaplan found that what he expected regarding the differences between behavior predictions: sensitizers were more negative, repressors were more positive.

Critique:

While this study shows that conclusions about information elicited from a subject can be affected by internal biases, the experiment was limited in scope.  It's important to mention that the researcher tried to counter potential external variables from affecting the study because this limited the affect that personal perception had on the information elicited from the subject.  This study is also pretty old, but because of the type of analysis it attempts to do it seems to be still highly relevant the methodology.

KAPLAN, M. (1968). Elicitation of information and response biases of repressors, sensitizers, and neutrals in behavior prediction. Journal Of Personality, 36(1), 84-91. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1968.tb01461.x